Would you rather have 20 Title Defenses with the "IBF" or "WBO"

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Joe2608
    The Red Devils
    Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
    • May 2008
    • 7753
    • 120
    • 108
    • 14,691

    #31
    It's about who you beat and how you beat them not about the kind of title you have. All the 4 major belts are corrupt as each other. The only respectable belt is the Ring belt. The worst belt to have is the WBA right now. WBO is one of the better ones nowadays.

    Comment

    • JakeNDaBox
      The Jake of All Trades
      Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
      • Sep 2006
      • 2381
      • 343
      • 39
      • 14,702

      #32
      Originally posted by Deja_Vous
      IBF

      The WBO is a contender's belt.

      It's not meant to be held for years on end.

      Until Joe and Margarito NOBODY held the WBO for any length of time.

      NOBODY with a WBO considered themselves a real cham until those clowns hit the scene.
      This is simply untrue. The only thing the IBF has on the WBO is time in service. But even they didn't gain legitimacy until Larry Holmes and Marvin Hagler endorsed them.

      The WBO hit their stride somewhere around 1995, when they boasted among others as their champs: Bowe (HW), Michalczewski (LHW), Eubank/Collins (SMW), Oscar de la Hoya (LW), Naseem Hamed (FW), Marco Antonio Barrera (JFW) and Johnny Tapia (JBW). It was then when the "big three" was changed to the "big four."

      de la Hoya, Hamed and Barrera were all considered the top fighters of their divisions and P4P entrants over the course of their reigns, with Hamed and Barrera enjoying reigns longer than temporarily.

      Comment

      • dde91
        Undisputed Champion
        Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
        • Oct 2008
        • 2686
        • 86
        • 20
        • 9,217

        #33
        Originally posted by JakeNDaBox
        This is simply untrue. The only thing the IBF has on the WBO is time in service. But even they didn't gain legitimacy until Larry Holmes and Marvin Hagler endorsed them.

        The WBO hit their stride somewhere around 1995, when they boasted among others as their champs: Bowe (HW), Michalczewski (LHW), Eubank/Collins (SMW), Oscar de la Hoya (LW), Naseem Hamed (FW), Marco Antonio Barrera (JFW) and Johnny Tapia (JBW). It was then when the "big three" was changed to the "big four."

        de la Hoya, Hamed and Barrera were all considered the top fighters of their divisions and P4P entrants over the course of their reigns, with Hamed and Barrera enjoying reigns longer than temporarily.


        So would you rather hold the WBO or IBF?

        Comment

        • Seiko
          Interim Champion
          • Aug 2008
          • 601
          • 18
          • 100
          • 7,122

          #34
          the ibf is a lot more prestigous and your more likely to defend the ibf belt with stiffer comp than the wbo

          Comment

          • Gettin Jiggy
            ---------------
            Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
            • Jul 2009
            • 1775
            • 61
            • 42
            • 8,029

            #35
            IBF is a more accomplished title!

            Comment

            • jaguar30
              Contender
              Silver Champion - 100-500 posts
              • Jun 2009
              • 128
              • 1
              • 0
              • 6,159

              #36
              Here in the US is where boxers are made and tested...
              WBO but to me WBC goes back to the greatest fighters in history

              Comment

              Working...
              TOP